LAW&

Volume 26 Issue 2

Do You Want the Government Looking Under Your Bed?

4

Victory for Arizona’s Entrepreneurs

5

An Insider’s Look at IJ Oral Arguments

6

New IJ Book Shines a Light On “Bottleneckers”

10

Published Bimonthly by the Institute for Justice

Visit us online:www.ij.org

Inside This Issue

By Jeff RowesA few years ago, IJ introduced readers of

Liberty & Law to the courageous homeowners in the Pleasant Ridge neighborhood of Charlestown, Indiana. Supported by our activism team, they stood up to the mayor and a private devel-oper, who wanted to bulldoze low-income Pleasant Ridge to build an upscale subdivision. We prevailed in November 2014 when the state of Indiana scuttled a “blight elimination” grant and the City Council voted the project down.

But like horror movie villains, the mayor and devel-oper have come after the neighborhood again, and this

time we are taking them to court. In early February, IJ launched a pathbreaking legal challenge to defend doz-ens of Pleasant Ridge homes from the wrecking ball.

The city’s scheme is so patently unjust that even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor failed to foresee it in her Kelo dissent, in which she warned only of “replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” In Charlestown, it is even worse. Here, the government wants to

take homes of lower-income families and replace them with homes for more well-to-do families.

As with all IJ lawsuits, our extraordinary clients are the backbone of our case.

April 2017

Charlestown continued on page 2

PROPERTY RIGHTS STANDOFF

David and Ellen Keith are fighting to stop the city of Charlestown, Indiana, from taking the home they’ve owned for decades.

iam.ij.org/charlestownvid

LAW&

2

Josh’s StoryThirty-two-year-old Josh Craven grew up in the

Pleasant Ridge neighborhood. He is a single dad to a four-year-old girl, supporting his little family as an exterminator. Josh and his daughter live in a small home in Pleasant Ridge that he is buying from his dad. He is terrified of losing his home because it is the only one that he can realistically afford.

Josh is unable to devote all of his time away from work to raising his little girl. As president of the Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Association, Josh is locked in a legal and political battle with the city that often seems like a full-time job. Imagine com-ing home from work each day only to begin your second “job” of trying to fight off the mayor and his developer.

For Josh, the fight is not just about saving his home and the homes of his neighbors. It is also about teaching his daughter that she matters and that she is not—as city documents have called the neigh-borhood—a “stigma” that “stymies economic growth.” As Josh puts it, “I may never win Father of the Year, but being able to show my daughter the importance of never backing down when surrounded by injustice has been enough to make me a proud parent.”

Charlestown continued from page 1

LAW&

2

“I may never win Father of the Year, but being able to show my daughter the importance of never backing down when surrounded by injustice has been enough to make me a proud parent.”

—Josh Craven

3

April 2017

3

Tina’s StoryMuch like Josh, Tina Barnes is an acci-

dental hero. She is a single mom caring for a disabled adult daughter and raising two teenage granddaughters as her own. Trying to make ends meet as a medical billing clerk, Tina was overjoyed a few years ago to move her family into their Pleasant Ridge home. For Tina, who had been a longtime Pleasant Ridge resident, it was a homecoming.

Tina never envisioned that one day she would lead a David-versus-Goliath charge against city hall, and she certainly never imagined that she would do it as an elected official. But that is what happened when, at her neighbors’

insistence, Tina ran and was elected to repre-sent Pleasant Ridge on the Charlestown City Council in 2015. Twice a month she squares off against the mayor and his handpicked allies as the sole voice of dissent.

Tina’s predicament is typical of Pleasant Ridge residents. She has nowhere to go and los-ing her home would mean not only losing her beloved neighborhood, but also leaving town altogether. And like Josh’s, Tina’s fight is just as much about her dignity as it is about her home: “We’re hardworking people, we come to each other’s aid, we love our neighborhood.”

Charlestown continued on page 8

April 2017

“We’re hardworking people, we come to each other’s aid, we love our neighborhood.”

—Tina Barnes

LAW&

44

IJ Wins Class Action Status

In Philadelphia Forfeiture Lawsuit

IJ is determined to always remain on the cutting edge of strategies and tactics to advance individual liberty. One method we are pioneering is the use of class action lawsuits to challenge gov-ernment power.

In a major milestone in IJ history, we won class action certi-fication in our lawsuit challenging Philadelphia’s forfeiture machine. This means our clients—Chris and Markela Sourovelis, Norys Hernandez, Doila Welch and Nassir Geiger—are officially stand-ing up for the more than 20,000 property owners in the city who were threatened with civil forfeiture under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act in the last five years. As you read in the December newsletter, IJ is also seeking class action status in two other prop-erty rights cases and should have updates later this year.

Philadelphia police and pros-ecutors use civil forfeiture to take in nearly $6 million each year in forfeiture proceeds, which they use to pay salaries and other expenses. The core claim of the lawsuit we filed in August 2014 challenges this direct financial incentive police and prosecutors have to seize and for-feit property.u

By Rob Peccola Most of us have lived in a rental property

at least once in our lives. Like any place we call home, a rented house should be protected against illegal searches and seizures—and govern-ment officials should be forbidden from entering without probable cause that a crime or safety violation has been committed inside. Pottstown, Pennsylvania, however, sees things differently.

Pottstown residents Dottie and Omar Rivera are living every renter’s nightmare. City officials—in keeping with a disturbing national trend—have threatened to enter their home without their permission as part of a “rental inspection” sanctioned by local law. Without any evidence that something is wrong with the home, an inspector has license to rifle through every area: storage areas, bedroom closets, kitchen and bathroom cabinets, attics and basements. Even furniture and appliances are not safe from the inspector’s prying eyes—refrigerators, stovetops and washers are all fair game.

These invasive inspec-tions happen in cities across Pennsylvania (and many other states) on account of a single U.S. Supreme Court case: Camara v. Municipal Court. Camara allows invasive rental inspec-tions to happen, over tenants’ objections, under the Fourth Amendment by creating “administrative warrants”—warrants that do not require evidence of anything wrong with the home. Under Camara, things like the “passage

of time” (rather than suspicion of a violation) are sufficient to grant the government access to your home.

Fortunately, this is one area where the U.S. Supreme Court does not get the last word—and IJ is stepping in to help protect Dottie, Omar and all Pennsylvania renters who care about privacy and property rights. The Pennsylvania Constitution’s protections against illegal searches and seizures are as old as the nation—and stronger than the federal Fourth Amendment. Steeped in this history, Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s search and seizure provision to provide greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment.

Dottie, Omar and their landlord, Steve Camburn, are teaming up with IJ to challenge Pottstown’s rental inspection pro-gram in state court. Dottie and Omar have happily rented their home from Steve for the last five years and believe an inspection would be extremely invasive and violate their family’s rights.

IJ will help Dottie and Omar affirm the prerogatives of the

Pennsylvania framers who so cherished the sanctity of the home. After all, a home is a home—regardless of whether it is rented or owned.u

Rob Peccola is an IJ attorney.

Government Overreach Knocks on Renters, Doors

Landlord and IJ client Steve Camburn is suing to protect his tenants from unlawful searches.

IJ client Dottie Rivera does not want the government going through her home.

LAW&

5

April 2017

IJ Hosts National

School Choice Week

Carnival

IJ is committed to protecting and promoting school choice in court and at state legislatures. But sometimes promot-ing school choice means brushing up on our arts and crafts skills for a day of fun. In late January, IJ teamed up with Serving Our Children, the administra-tor of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, to host our annual National School Choice Week Carnival. The carni-val serves to unite the D.C. community and raise awareness about educational choice and the opportunities this pro-gram provides.

Every year, hundreds of families in D.C. attend the carnival and apply to the scholarship program, which provides local low-income families with K–12 private school scholarships. This year was no different. While parents learned more about the educational opportunities available, kids played carnival games, enjoyed food and fun snacks and took home books and prizes. D.C.-area rap-per Lightshow shared his school choice story with the crowd, and school choice heroine Virginia Walden Ford also spoke to the crowd about the importance of fighting for this program.

The National School Choice Week Carnival is one of our favorite events of the year, and we look forward to continu-ing the momentum for school choice at the grassroots level and hosting the car-nival next year!u

By Diana SimpsonIn February, three Arizona entrepre-

neurs demonstrated—once again—the power of coming together to stand up to the government in the face of burdensome regulation. Celeste Kelly, Grace Granatelli and Stacey Kollman are now free to prac-tice their craft after the Arizona Veterinary Medical Examining Board agreed to stop enforcing a law that allowed only licensed veterinarians to massage animals.

Celeste, Grace and Stacey are all ani-mal massage practitioners who run their own successful businesses. They each opened their businesses over a decade ago and built thriving practices offering services they were trained to provide after becoming certi-fied in animal massage. But the state of Arizona had dif-ferent plans. The Veterinary Medical Examining Board determined that animal massage was the practice of veterinary medicine and sent cease-and-desist orders to Celeste, Grace and other Arizona practitioners threat-ening them with fines and jail time if they continued. In order to comply with the state’s demands, they would need to graduate from veterinary school and pass a multitude of exams to become licensed veterinarians.

But therein lies the rub: Veterinary school does not even teach massage and the exams do not test massage. If the state had its way, Celeste, Grace and Stacey would be forced to spend four years and hundreds of thousands of dol-lars without learning anything about the very thing they already know how to do.

IJ spent three years deep in litiga-tion and, on the eve of an important legal filing where we demonstrated the irrationality of Arizona’s system, the state capitulated and negotiated with Celeste, Grace and Stacey for a victory for them and every animal massage practitioner in Arizona. The judge entered a consent judgment that prohibits the board from requiring veterinary licenses for any ani-mal massage practitioner in Arizona or subjecting any animal massage practitio-ner to harassment or legal penalties for practicing their craft.

The judgment brought a complete victory and a successful end to our law-

suit. Celeste, Grace and Stacey filed this case to vindicate one of the most imperative constitutional rights, the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government regulation, and they suc-ceeded.

This victory contin-ues the long tradition of IJ protecting economic liberty in Arizona. Since opening its doors in the Grand Canyon State 15 years ago, IJ has never lost an economic liberty

challenge in the state. We will continue to build on that tradition and defend the right of all Arizonans to earn an honest living.u

Diana Simpson is an IJ attorney.

Paws Down on Arizona’s Animal Massage Law

5

Thanks to IJ’s work, client Celeste Kelly can now legally massage animals.

April 2017

LAW&

6

By Dana BerlinerEveryone knows that lawyers appear in court and

talk to judges, but the portrayals on TV don’t usually give an accurate impression of what happens in court and why. IJ lawyers appear in court to argue for individual liberty, but they must also argue every complex and tech-nical procedural issue that the government uses to try to derail our cases. That means that each of our cases has many oral arguments over time.

IJ litigates at every level—in federal court and in state court, in trial courts, mid-level appellate courts, and supreme courts. In just this past year, 26 IJ lawyers had 66 oral arguments, appearing in 36 cases, before 33 dif-ferent courts.

Oral arguments can be full of surprises. Some judges ask questions the entire time, and the lawyer has to find a way to inject the most important points into the answers. When Dan Alban argued our case on behalf of hair braiders in Missouri in federal trial court, the hearing was nonstop questions for two hours, and it only stopped because a blizzard was about to hit. Other judges may ask no questions, and the lawyer must present everything they want to say without any idea about what parts of the argument are important to the judge. When Greg Reed explained why the court should not dismiss our challenge to food truck restric-tions in Baltimore, he did so without a single question from the bench. In our case to break the monopoly on taxis in Little Rock, Arkansas, the judge ruled in favor of our entrepreneur client right after Justin Pearson had stopped speaking. In other cases, we have had to wait years for a decision.

Oral arguments in trial courts are probably the most like what people imagine lawyers do. Lawyers present

evidence and make cogent arguments to convince the judge. Often, the judge is learning more about the case and coming to understand it along the way, so these argu-ments can have lots of questions from the judge about facts or law. The trial and accompanying oral argument in our case involving the monks who wanted to manufacture caskets in Louisiana was all about making sure the judge understood how the casket industry works, what caskets actually are, and how people go about buying caskets, both in Louisiana and outside of it. Once the judge under-stood that caskets really are just wooden boxes and that people frequently buy them on the internet, he also under-stood that all the reasons the state was giving about why people needed years of schooling to be allowed to sell caskets were total hogwash.

Appellate and state supreme court arguments, on the other hand, are less about convincing the judges (there are always at least three when you are on appeal) and more about shaping the opinion and possible dissents (the opin-ions that judges in the minority write when they disagree with the outcome). On appeal, all of the judges will have read lengthy legal papers and will be strongly inclined as to how they will rule. Oral argument, then, is about testing their theories, seeing if the facts and law fit with the partic-ular way they hope to decide the case. The arguments also may reflect discussions that have been happening among the judges about particular issues, with each judge asking questions in a way that tries to convince the others. These kinds of arguments can be very challenging, because the lawyer must be prepared to respond to many different kinds of questions and to do so quickly.

Anthony Sanders’ most recent argument at the Minnesota Supreme Court illustrates the need for IJ law-yers to be prepared for anything. The case involves the

The Litigator's Notebook: A Behind the Scenes Look at

Oral Arguments

6

LAW&

IJ clients and attorneys are all smiles after March’s appellate argument for transportation freedom in Oregon.

Dana Berliner argues an eminent domain case before

the Ohio Supreme Court.

IJ Senior Attorney Tim Keller (second from left) speaks to Arizona families before a school choice argument.

7

April 2017

meaning of the admonition in the Minnesota Constitution that warrants shall not be issued without probable cause.

The U.S. Constitution has a similar clause, but the U.S. Supreme Court has already said that the Constitution does not bar cities from conducting inspections of rental homes without the consent of landlord or tenant and with-out any evidence that anything is wrong with the home. We are asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide to interpret its own state Constitution differently. Anthony got out two whole sentences before the questioning began. One judge interrogated Anthony at length about the meaning and history of a par-ticular semicolon in the text of the Minnesota Constitution. Two judges were interested in the policy implica-tions of their decision—how would this affect the quality of rental hous-ing? Plainly, the answers to these varied questions will figure heavily in discussions happening among the justices after the argument.

Sometimes, oral arguments are most memorable for a question asked of one’s opponent. During the 2005 Kelo vs. City of New London argu-ment at the U.S. Supreme Court—argued perfectly by IJ President Scott Bullock—the real shocker came when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor asked the lawyer represent-ing New London, “... the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?” Answer: “Yes.” That one question and answer then became the focus of Justice O’Connor’s dissent and the catalyst for

the 44 state legislative reforms that swept the country after the decision. States wanted to make sure that in their state, the answer to the question would be a resounding “no.”

And at IJ, oral arguments are not just about the law-yers appearing in court. They are also about our clients and all the other people whose lives will be affected by the outcome. Sixty taxi drivers desperate to drive their own cabs piled into the courtroom to hear Bob McNamara argue for taxi freedom at the Colorado Supreme Court. Before our

eminent domain argument at the Ohio Supreme Court, in which we success-fully argued that the Ohio Constitution forbids eminent domain for economic development, hundreds of property owners from across the state attended a rally for property rights in front of the court. And in Arizona, a line of 100 parents and children hoping to get in to hear an Arizona Supreme Court argument about school vouchers cheered Tim Keller as he walked in to present our case.

IJ lawyers prepare intensely for oral argument. By the time we get there, we are ready for anything and ready to make whatever arguments we need—about the law, the facts or the process—to ensure greater liberty for our clients and everyone else.u

Dana Berliner is IJ’s senior vice president and litigation director.

April 2017

Susette Kelo and IJ President Scott Bullock talk with reporters after the 2005

U.S. Supreme Court argument.

Let’s take a look at a typical month of arguments. Wesley Hottot told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that an entrepreneur should not have to go out of busi-ness in order to bring a lawsuit challenging a restriction on economic liberty. (Yes, amazingly, this is actually a ques-tion, and the trial court told our sedan entrepreneur that he could not challenge the state’s prohibition on sedan Groupons because he was still in business.) Dick Komer flew to Kalispell, Montana, to argue that a school choice program that parents can only use if their children attend non-religious schools violates the U.S. Constitution. In New Mexico, Rob Johnson argued that Albuquerque’s municipal

civil forfeiture program violates the brand-new law passed by the state Legislature specifically to ban civil forfeiture. Wesley also had two different arguments asking San Diego state trial courts to return money that county prosecutors seized and held for more than a year, missing their deadline to file a forfeiture action. In our ongoing case challeng-ing civil forfeiture in Philadelphia, Darpana Sheth argued against yet another round of motions to dismiss our case. And there has already been an argument in the Pottstown rental inspections case you read about earlier in this issue. Meagan Forbes convinced a Pennsylvania magistrate that, even though he was going to issue the search warrant, he should not let the city actually conduct the search until we have had time to present our full case.

IJ's March 2017 Arguments

7

LAW&

8

David and Ellen’s StoryDavid and Ellen Keith should be on cruise control

through their golden years. David is a retired autoworker and Ellen works part time as a hairdresser. They live in Pleasant Ridge next door to their daughter, granddaughter and two great-grandchildren. Their idyllic lives and immacu-late home are a testament to the American Dream.

But the road has turned out to be far rougher than expected. Ever since the mayor declared in 2014 that every home in Pleasant Ridge, no matter how lovingly maintained,

must be demolished, David and Ellen have faced a frighten-ing future.

For David, who worked hard and paid his taxes, the idea that the government can throw him out of his own home in retirement is incomprehensible: “I thought that when your house is paid for, you’ve got it made.” Ellen, whose unwavering confidence is an inspiration to the whole neighborhood, has no doubt about the outcome: “We will be on this hill when this battle is over. We’re going to be standing in this yard.”

8

LAW&

Charlestown continued from page 3

“We will be on this hill when this battle is over. We’re going to be standing in this yard.”

—Ellen Keith

9

April 2017

The FightThis fight has presented unique challenges apart from

the sheer number of homes involved. Charlestown is doing many illegal things, and they are illegal in several ways. The city is planning to use a combination of property-code enforcement and eminent domain to force the sale of Pleasant Ridge homes to the developer. In the latter half of 2016, the city imposed illegal and unconstitutional fines on Pleasant Ridge properties owned by landlords to force 140 sales to the developer for roughly $10,000 each. The city imposed a $8,950 fine on the Neighborhood Association’s duplex for small and quickly corrected deficiencies. The city’s plan violates city ordinances, Indiana state law, and the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions.

Once the city has exhausted its code-enforcement strategy, which IJ is now trying to bring to an immedi-ate halt in court, the city is expected to turn to eminent domain. Just as we are defending against bogus code enforcement, we will stop the abuse of eminent domain.

The law does not allow Charlestown to take a low-income mom’s home so that a developer can build a house for someone wealthier. When the battle is over, IJ and its clients will still be standing in Pleasant Ridge.u

Jeff Rowes is an IJ senior attorney.

Little Pink House Red Carpet World Premiere

At the Santa Barbara International Film Festival

The Institute for Justice’s historic battle against eminent domain abuse on behalf of New London, Connecticut, homeowners hit the big screen with the world premiere of Little Pink House at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival in February. Among those attending the screening and red carpet walk were, from left (above): IJ client Susette Kelo; two-time Oscar nominee Catherine Keener, who plays Kelo; IJ President Scott Bullock; music legend David Crosby, who wrote the song “Home Free” for the movie’s closing credits; producer Ted Balaker; director and screenwriter Courtney Balaker; and Jeff Benedict, author of the book Little Pink House on which the movie is based. The Little Pink House movie held its East Coast premiere soon thereafter at the Athena Film Festival in New York City. IJ plans to work with the movie’s produc-ers to hold public and private screenings with the goal of driving home the need for greater protection for property rights from coast to coast. Visit facebook.com/LittlePinkHouseMovie to stay updated on the latest news about the film and information about future screenings.u

April 2017

9

In February, IJ and the Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Association held a well-attended press conference and rally announcing the lawsuit.

LAW&

10

IJ’s New Book Adds

“BOTTLENECKERS” To the American Lexicon

Spotlights Those Behind Big Government Licensing Laws

Bottleneckers Author Featured in State Policy Network Talks Nationwide

Dick Carpenter is participating in a nationwide speaking tour to pro-mote Bottleneckers. For an update on new dates in your area, check back at ij.org/opportunities/events-and-speakers.

February 1Texas Public Policy FoundationAustin, Texas

February 22Georgia Public Policy FoundationAtlanta, Georgia

February 28Mackinac Center for Public PolicyLansing, Michigan

March 6John Locke FoundationRaleigh, North Carolina

March 8Pacific Research InstituteSan Francisco, California

April 20Pacific Legal FoundationSacramento, California

April 25Advance Arkansas InstituteLittle Rock, Arkansas

May 2Pioneer InstituteBoston, Massachusetts

May 10Illinois Policy InstituteChicago, Illinois

May 25Independence InstituteDenver, Colorado

By John KramerThe Left, Right and Center all say they

hate them: Powerful special interests who use government power for their own private benefit. Now there is a new, artful and memorable one-word pejorative to describe them: Bottleneckers, which is also the title and subject of the Institute for Justice’s new book (Encounter Books, $27.99). The book is now being featured in speaking engage-ments at State Policy Network events across the nation.

A “bottlenecker” is anyone who uses government power to limit competition, thereby reaping monopoly profits and other benefits. Bottleneckers work with politicians to constrict competition, entrepreneurial innovation and opportunity; they limit consumer choice; they drive up consumer prices; and they support politicians who willingly overstep the constitutional limits of their power to create, maintain and expand anticompetitive bottlenecks.

Bottleneckers: Gaming the Government for Power and Private Profit provides a rich history and well-researched examples of bot-tleneckers in one occupation after another. Among the trades documented in the book are alcohol distributors (who gave bottle-neckers their name), casket cartels, cos-metologists, interior designers, tour guides, taxicabs and New York City’s dollar vans, street vendors, and opinion columnists and

bloggers, each of which has been the focus of bottleneckers bent on using government force to keep others out. Bottleneckers also points the way to positive reforms that open the marketplace for new businesses.

For the past two years, IJ Director of Strategic Research Dick Carpenter and his team worked to document how bottleneck-ers in one industry after another captured government power and then used that power to block competition. Regular readers will know that it is often an industry itself that invites the government to impose new pro-tectionist regulations on it. This is not how government power is supposed to be used in America. IJ’s goal with Bottleneckers is to spotlight those who have abused this power.

This book both provides a history of how bottleneckers took control of so many occupations and gives clear solutions to fix this problem. One of the most significant contributions of this work is that it docu-ments how these licensing schemes are being broken open in state capitols on both sides of the aisle, in courts of law, and in the court of public opinion. It is possible to end this practice, and Bottleneckers shows how that can be done.u

John Kramer is IJ’s vice president for communications

Bottleneckers author Dick Carpenter discusses the book on C-SPAN.

11

April 2017

Quotable QuotesKAAL-TV

“‘If a tenant doesn’t want somebody in their home for whatever reason, because they value their privacy, the government shouldn’t be able to do that unless it has some kind of evidence of something wrong,’ said [IJ Senior Attorney Anthony] Sanders.”

Las Vegas Review-Journal

“‘Nevada’s failure to account for spending from forfeiture funds is particularly trou-bling,’ said Jennifer McDonald, an IJ research analyst and co-author of [Forfeiture Transparency & Accountability]. ‘With forfeiture, law enforcement agencies can keep some or all of the proceeds from the property they take. This enables them to generate and spend funds outside the normal appropriations process, which undermines the Legislature’s power of the purse. At a bare minimum, agencies should have to publicly report how they spend forfeiture proceeds.’”

Chicago Tribune

“‘The food truck industry will survive, it will thrive, just not in the city of Chicago,’ said Robert Frommer, the Institute for Justice attorney who represented food truck owner Laura Pekarik in the case. ‘Look at LA, look at New York, look at Philadelphia. They all have vibrant food truck scenes because they don’t play favorites.’”

Justice Clarence Thomas Citing Policing for Profit

“Civil [forfeiture] proceedings often lack certain procedural protections that accom-pany criminal proceedings, such as the right to a jury trial and a heightened standard of proof. Partially as a result of this distinct legal regime, civil forfeiture has in recent decades become widespread and highly profitable. See, e.g., Institute for Justice, D. Carpenter, L. Knepper, A. Erickson, & J. McDonald, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture 10 (2d ed. Nov. 2015).”

Volume 26 Issue 2

About the publicationLiberty & Law is published bimonthly by the Institute for Justice, which, through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism and research, advances a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society. IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government. In addition, IJ trains law students, lawyers and activists in the tac-tics of public interest litigation.

Through these activities, IJ challenges the ideology of the welfare state and illustrates and extends the benefits of freedom to those whose full enjoyment of liberty is denied by government.

Editor: Shira RawlinsonLayout & Design: Laura Maurice

How to reach us:

Institute for Justice901 N. Glebe RoadSuite 900 Arlington, VA 22203

General Information . . . . . (703) 682-9320

Extensions:Donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Website: www.ij.orgE-mail: general@ij.orgDonate: www.ij.org/donate

facebook.com/instituteforjustice

youtube.com/instituteforjustice

twitter.com/ij

I was the U.S. tour manager for a Burmese Christian band.

When I was driving through Oklahoma, law enforcement seized $53,000 the band had raised for a Thai orphanage and a Burmese college and tried to keep it using civil forfeiture.

I fought this horrific practice and I won.

I am IJ.

Institute for Justice901 N. Glebe RoadSuite 900Arlington, VA 22203

“If a person believes

strongly in economic

liberty, the right to

earn an honest living

away from arbitrary

and unreasonable

government regulation

through hard work—that

is so fundamentally

American.”—IJ Senior Attorney Paul Avelar

quoted in The Indianapolis Star

www.IJ.orgEh WahDallas, TX

Institute for JusticeNational Law Firm for Liberty

NON-PROFIT ORG.U . S . P O S T A G E P A I DI N S T I T U T E FO RJ U S T I C E